On August 12, 1991, CUNA Mutual Insurance Society and Office and Professional
Employees International Union Local 39 filed an arbitration request with the
Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, asking the Commission to appoint William
C. Houlihan, a member of its staff, to hear and decide the matter. A hearing was
conducted on October 30, 1991 in Madison, Wisconsin. A transcript of the
proceedings was taken and distributed by November 14, 1991. Post-hearing briefs
were filed and exchanged by December 6, 1991.

BACKGROUND AND FACTS

The facts giving rise to this grievance are not substantially in dispute. In
July, 1991, the Company transferred approximately 400 bargaining unit employes, and
a number of non-bargaining unit employes, from its Mineral Point Road, Madison,
Wisconsin headquarters to a newly-constructed leased facility called World Trade
Center, in Middleton, Wisconsin. The facilities are approximately 5 miles apart.

This grievance centers on a dispute over whether or not the Company violated
the terms of the parties' labor agreement. It is the Union's claim that the new
facility lacks a number of amenities, rising to the level of contractualized
entitlements, available in the Home Base facility. The Union's claim in this regard
is sweeping, but focuses on five general areas. The first is the loss of
underground parking. Most employes at the Mineral Point Road site enjoy free
underground secured parking. Engineering/Maintenance employes are on site to help
change flat tires, jump start cars, and generally assist distressed motorists. The
level of security is also high. Employes assigned to the World Trade Center park
on surface lots, with reduced security and little, if any, employer provided and/or
paid-for auto assistance. The second area is the loss of a subsidized cafeteria.
The Company substantially subsidizes the cost of meals in its two Mineral Point Road
site cafeterias. Those cafeterias are open during the bulk of the day shift and
from 4:30 - 6:00 p.m. (1) The Company
has provided a catered cafeteria at the World
Trade Center, but prices are somewhat higher to the employes and there are no hours
available to second shift employes.

The third area of objection is the loss of exercise facilities. Exercise facilities
at the World Trade Center facility are substantially smaller than those at the
Mineral Point Road site. Hours are shorter, staffing levels lower, and there
appears to be less equipment. The Company contends that the facility was
professionally developed for the employes assigned to the World Trade Center. It
is smaller but services 450 people, whereas the Mineral Point Road facility services
in excess of 2000. The facilities, on a per capita basis, are roughly equivalent
and Middleton employes are able to use the Mineral Point Road facility.

The fourth area of concern is the lack of a smoking area at the World Trade
Center. The owner of that leased facility will not permit smoking. Occupational
Safety and Health Administration regulations would require separate ventilation for
a smoking room and the building is not designed to accommodate such a system.
Company officials say they continue to work on creating an area for smoking. At the
Mineral Point Road building, both cafeterias allow smoking.

The fifth area of employe concern is the absence of medical facilities at the
new site. The Mineral Point Road site has a staffed medical office, available to
employes. No such facility is present at the World Trade Center, though the Company
continues efforts in this area.

The Union claims compensation for the loss of these, and various other,
employment benefits. That claim is driven by the parties' experiences in two other
employe transfers to off site work locations. In 1989, the Company relocated
approximately 200 employes from Headquarters to a building the Company had purchased
on Old Sauk Trail in Madison. Employes expressed many of the concerns noted above
relative to that move. The Union, in the person of Chief Steward Darlys Lawinger,
engaged in discussions with the Company, in the person of Dan Davidson, over the
move. Numerous problems arose, were addressed, and largely resolved. According to
Lawinger, the parties negotiated a $100 per month off site differential. According
to Lawinger, the $100 was for the inconvenience brought about by the lack of a
cafeteria and underground parking. There is no exercise facility at Old Sauk Road,
but employes continue to have access to the Mineral Point Road facility. Smoking
is permitted on-site and there is no comparable medical office or staff. According
to Davidson, there was no negotiation over the $100. Davidson testified that
Company management made a unilateral and internal decision to give displaced
employes $100 per month to offset the inconvenience of their new work site, and
informed the Union of that fact. Management witnesses also testified that the $100
was for loss of cafeteria and underground parking.

In 1990 the Company moved 10-15 employes from Headquarters to a physically
separate warehouse site. Lawinger, Davidson, Union Business Representative John
Peterson, and Jeanne Leyda, Assistant Vice-President in Charge of Servicing, toured
the new site. Lawinger asked if the Company intended to pay employes assigned to
the warehouse the $100/month differential. Davidson responded that it intended to
do so.

All employes, both bargaining unit and non-bargaining unit, have been paid
$100 a month since their transfer.

ISSUE

The parties were unable to stipulate an issue.

The issue advanced by the Union is whether or not the relocation of employes
to the World Trade Center caused a lowering of working conditions in violation of
Article XIV, Section 2 or any other provision of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement, and, two, if so, what is the appropriate remedy.

The issue as presented by the Employer is whether the failure of the Employer
to provide an off-site allowance to the represented employes at the World Trade
Center violated the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and, if so, what
should be the appropriate remedy.

RELEVANT CONTRACT PROVISIONS

PREAMBLE

WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to cooperate in
establishing conditions
which will tend to secure to the Employees concerned, a living wage and fair and
reasonable conditions of employment and to provide methods for fair and peaceful
adjustment of all disputes which may arise between them, so as to secure
uninterrupted operations of the office involved.

NOW THEREFORE, be it mutually agreed to as follows:

COOPERATION

The Union agrees for its members that they will individually
and
collectively
perform loyal and efficient work and service, that they will use their influence and
best efforts to protect the property of the Society, and that they will cooperate
in improving and expanding the welfare of the Society.

The Society agrees that it will cooperate with the Union in the
future as it
has in the past promoting harmony among all of its Employees.

RECOGNITION

The Employer recognizes the Union as the exclusive
bargaining
representative
for all employees located in the United States employed by the Employer under the
Graded, Classified and Administrative and Professional pay categories but excluding
all officers of the Employer, attorneys in the Office of General Counsel,
confidential secretaries, field personnel and all members of the Management Staff
performing the functions of Management, provided, however, that any Employees
involved in offices other than Madison, Wisconsin; Pomona, California; Jackson,
Mississippi; Metairie, Louisiana; and Bellevue, Washington, in pay categories
equivalent to the above-indicated Graded, Classified and Administrative and
Professional pay categories shall have the option to join the Union but shall not
be required to join unless a majority of Employees in each such office currently
located in Lynfield, Massachusetts; Towson, Maryland; Albany, New York; Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania; Minneapolis, Minnesota; St. Louis, Missouri; Indianapolis, Indiana;
Salt Lake City, Utah; Dallas, Texas; Duluth, Georgia; Chattanooga, Tennessee;
Arvada, Colorado; or other District Offices designated by the Employer; request
representation by the Union. Any office in any state with a right-to-work law shall
be subject to such law.

ARTICLE XIV

NONDISCRIMINATION

SECTION 1. The Employer will not discriminate against an
Employee because of
his/her activity as a member of the Union.

SECTION 2. No clause in this Agreement shall be
understood
to imply any
lowering of the working conditions heretofore existing in the office of the
Employer.

ARTICLE XV

WAGES

. . .

SECTION 8. All questions of the salary structure changes
for
all Employees
are to be settled by a Negotiating Committee of the Union with the Employer. Each
such settlement approved by this Negotiating Committee and the Employer shall
immediately become binding as part of this Agreement.

. . .

ARTICLE XIX

TRANSFER OF OPERATIONS

SECTION 1. Employees shall have the right to go with the
Employer if such
offices are moved to another city, without loss of any rights.

SECTION 2. Bargaining unit work will not be
moved out of the offices
currently performing that work without discussion with the Chief Steward of the
Union.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

It is the view of the Union that the Company violated the Collective
Bargaining Agreement by lowering the working conditions of employes who it
transferred to the World Trade Center. Article XIV, Section 2 is a Maintenance of
Standards Clause. Such a clause protects established working conditions, even
though those conditions are not specifically referred to in the Agreement and indeed
may never have been the subject of formal negotiations. They guarantee that the
floor on which the employes stand will not be eroded by unilateral actions of the
Company. Indeed, the precise function of such clauses is to "contractualize"
certain employe benefits which are not referred to in the contract.

The Union points to Hellenic Lines, Ltd. (39 LA 31) where Arbitrator
Loucks
interpreted the exact language found in this agreement as a Maintenance of Standards
clause. That dispute involved another local of the OPEIU and in ruling for the
Union, Arbitrator Loucks interpreted this same clause as follows:

The purpose and intent of such a provision clearly is to forestall a
"lowering
of some one or more 'working conditions'" by a Company signatory to a labor
agreement. Its intent is to prohibit the Employer from taking away some privilege,
right or benefit which employes have enjoyed prior to the effective date of that
Employer's first contract which he believes is no longer required of him by the
specific terms of that contract. It is a catch-all provision which means that
employes, under the first contract, are to retain all rights, privileges, and
benefits they previously enjoyed, plus any new ones the first contract specifically
provides for, unless, of course, an already existing right, privilege, or benefit
is lowered by some specific provision in the first Agreement. . .

The Union claims that same construction is applicable to these same words and
that the Company violated that construction and those words when it lowered the
working conditions of its WTC employes by depriving them without compensation of
underground, secure parking, subsidized cafeteria meals and certain other benefits.

The Union also points to Article XIX, Section 1. According to the Union, this
provision is pertinent because the WTC move did involve the transfer of operations
to another city (from Madison to Middleton). Under this provision, employes who
exercised their right to go with the Employer on this move were entitled to do so
without loss of any of their rights, including their right to maintain previously
existing working conditions in the new location.

The Union argues that underground parking, subsidized cafeteria meals and
certain other benefits were previously-existing working conditions within the
meaning of Article XIV, Section 2. The broad, general language contained in Article
XIV, Section 2 is emphatically not limited to specific contractual benefits or items
negotiated by the parties and incorporated into a written document. All witnesses
who were asked testified that employes had continuously enjoyed underground, secure
parking and subsidized cafeteria meals for many years. Those benefits over the
passage of time have become well-established as prevailing working conditions.

Until about 1986, the Company presented its employes with an annual "Employe
Benefits Profile". Included in the list of the Company's "excellent benefit
package" were various insurances and fringe benefits such as vacations and holidays.
Also included was this reference:

In addition the CUNA Mutual Insurance Group currently provides
employes with the
advantages of. . .cafeteria subsidy. . .parking. . .and a medical and exercise
resource facility, all without cost to the employe.

The Company itself thus characterized these matters as benefits comparable to
insurances and other traditional fringes. The Union cites arbitral authority where
benefits similar to the ones at issue here were held to be working conditions
protected by a Maintenance of Standards clause.

Certain working conditions were lowered as a result of the Company's transfer
of employes to the World Trade Center. The Union's "bill of particulars" reads as
follows:

There is only outdoor surface parking at the World Trade Center.
There is no
security parking, i.e. there is open access to all the lots.

Unlike the headquarters building, there is no municipal bus service available
to the World Trade Center.

Employes must pay themselves for jump-starts, tire changes and other
assistance to disabled vehicles. The cost per call is $15 to $20 and none of the
three stations is available at the time the second shift ends.

Even with the Company-provided discount at the World Trade Center cafeteria,
all but two of the 25 typical food items cost more at the World Trade Center than
at CUNA headquarters. An employe who eats daily at the World Trade Center cafeteria
will pay about $211 more than an employe who eats daily at the CUNA cafeteria. With
regard to scheduling, the World Trade Center cafeteria, unlike the CUNA cafeteria,
is not even open for second shift employes.

The WTC gym is a single, moderate-sized room with some weights and exercise
equipment, as opposed to the CUNA gym which has multiple, fully- equipped exercise
areas, shower rooms and a track. The WTC room is small even when the smaller number
of employes is considered. The Union did some calculations which demonstrate that
there are fewer per capita square feet at the WTC room than there are at the CUNA
facility. The WTC facility is staffed from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. while the CUNA
facility is staffed from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The WTC has no exercise classes,
while CUNA has regular classes.

Personal security is a special concern at the WTC, where, for example, 58 of
the 60 second shift employes are women. At the WTC there is one security guard for
five floors, and no video monitoring of exits and entrances. At CUNA there are
numerous patrolling security guards and the facility is fully video-monitored.

At the WTC, there is no medical clinic staffed by a physician and nurse.
Thus, there are no scheduled appointments or physical exams as there are at CUNA.

At the WTC, there is no credit union branch for the many employes who belong
to the credit union. Employes have to travel at their own expense to the
headquarters to make a banking transaction. There is no operational TYME machine
at the WTC.

At CUNA, there are two designated indoor smoking areas. At the WTC, there are
none. The entire building is no smoking, and employes who wish to smoke must go
outdoors.

The Company appears to suggest that because some things like break rooms and
office equipment were allegedly better at the WTC that this makes up for the loss
of the above benefits. In other words, there was an overall "balance" of benefits.
The accuracy of this assertion is alleged to be dubious, since there have been major
ongoing problems at the WTC. In any event it is settled that such a "compensating
advantages" defense does not justify lowering of benefits when there is a
Maintenance of Standards clause (Dane County, A/P M-84-244 (Kerkman,
1985)).
Finally, the Union contends that the Company's good faith efforts to expedite and
enhance the terms of the transfer is no defense to the exercise of its rights under
the Maintenance of Standards clause.

As a remedy, the Union claims $100 per month per employe as a reasonable
figure to offset losses incurred by employes involved in the transfer. The Union
goes through a quantification of the value of the various lost benefits and totals
near $100. The Union also cites the prior benchmark of $100 per month utilized in
the last two transfers.

It is the position of the Employer that no bargaining occurred over the
relocation of employes to the old Sauk Trail office facility, the American
warehouse, or the World Trade Center. The Employer does not dispute that the Union
had the right to engage in "effects" bargaining due to the three relocations, but,
however, equally, it is the position of the Employer that bargaining never occurred
in any of these three relocations and the Union waived its right to request and
engage in "effects" bargaining connected with the three relocations and the Union-perceived
lowering of benefits to the employes who were relocated. The Employer
cites several NLRB decisions in support of its position that the Union has waived
bargaining rights in this matter. The Employer makes reference to the discussions
between Lawinger and Davidson, characterizing them as "conversations,"
"discussions," and distinguishing those characterizations from bargaining. These
informal discussions are contrasted with the more formal negotiations periodically
conducted between the parties.

The Employer claims that the failure of the Union to request formal bargaining
over the allegedly lost benefits of employment calls into question the sincerity of
the Union's contention that these benefits which were being lowered by the
relocations were benefits required by the Collective Bargaining Agreement. It makes
sense, argues the Employer, to assume that if the Union had felt that underground
parking, subsidized cafeteria, medical facility, exercise facility, smoking rooms,
etc., were "terms" of the Collective Bargaining Agreement that they would have
requested formal bargaining and, after formal bargaining, the results of those
benefits negotiations, including a relocation allowance, would have been delineated
in a written agreement. No such agreement exists. The Employer points to the
testimony of its witnesses for the proposition that the $100 relocation allowance
given employes relocated to the old Sauk Trail building and the American warehouse
was unilateral, and not the product of bargaining.

The Company argues that numerous requests were made by the Union to negotiate
over the move to the World Trade Center. That despite these numerous requests and
some meetings, the Employer advised the Union that the $100 monthly subsidy would
not be paid and Mr. Hubing indicated that he lacked the authority to negotiate the
$100 allowance. Other matters were raised and were essentially resolved. Hubing
further testified, without contradiction, that he and McCarney (the new Chief
Steward, who replaced Lawinger) agreed that the particular issue of the $100, or any
allowance, would be set aside and addressed in arbitration. Had the Union really
believed it was engaged in collective bargaining it had strong legal recourse to
object to the Employer's, through Mr. Hubing, refusal to negotiate the subsidy
allowance. It is the position of that Employer that, if the Union felt that the
Employer was attempting to modify a provision of or change an established practice
in the existing collective bargaining agreement, it was required to bargain the $100
allowance related to the World Trade Center and any other unilateral contractual
changes that it felt were being made by the Employer. By not bargaining, the Union
has conceded that these "benefits", about which it has grieved, are not "terms"
covered by the parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The Employer claims no violation of the collective bargaining agreement by
refusing to provide the World Trade Center employes with the $100 off-site
relocation allowance or with benefits exactly the same as, or similar to, benefits
in effect at the Employer's headquarter complex. The Employer, citing authority,
claims that it is the Union's burden of proof to demonstrate breach of contract by
a preponderance of the evidence. In this dispute no specific provision of the
collective bargaining agreement explicitly covers the benefits which are the subject
matter of this arbitration. Additionally, argues the Employer, there is nothing in
this record that suggests a mutually agreed-upon practice that would bind the
Employer to the provision of these levels of benefits following a move.
Specifically, the $100 per month allowance did not exist as of the negotiation of
the prior collective bargaining agreement. Furthermore, there was no bargaining
that would lead the parties to a mutually agreed-upon $100 a month allowance in the
absence of any particular benefit.

It is the Employer's view that Article XIV, Section 2 is not a Maintenance of
Benefits clause. The clause is ambiguous. Read carefully, and literally, it makes
no sense. Since the Union proposed the clause, it must bear the drafting
difficulties.

The Employer was not obligated to provide the exact same benefits to employes
who relocated to the World Trade Center as may have been in effect at the Employer's
headquarters complex. The employes at the headquarters complex enjoy a subsidized
cafeteria. The subsidy at the headquarters complex was at one time 33% of
operational cost. As of the date of the arbitration hearing, that subsidy was
20.2%. Employes transferred to the World Trade Center are also beneficiaries of a
cafeteria subsidy, in the amount of 25%. While, as postulated by the Union, there
may be differences in the prices between the menus at the World Trade Center and the
headquarters complex cafeterias, whether an employe would in fact pay more would
depend upon that employe's individual eating habits. While there was testimony that
the second shift employes as of October 14 do not have access to a cafeteria, it is
equally clear that the Employer is addressing that particular situation to extend
the hours of the cafeteria to make it available to second shift employes.

The second major issue relates to parking. The fact remains that not all
employes at all times have enjoyed underground parking. What the employes have
always had is free parking, either surface parking or underground parking. There
is no factual dispute that the employes at the World Trade Center have free parking
next to the World Trade Center. Even assuming this is a benefit that has achieved
contract-level status, the Employer has done what it could to provide a similar
benefit at the World Trade Center. What the Union forgets in all of this is that
it is simply not possible to provide employes with the exact same benefits in a
relocation situation, nor is the Employer obligated to do so under arbitration case
law.

The exercise facility was another area the Union believed the Employer had
reduced a benefit, again a benefit that is not covered by any provision of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement. Employes at the Old Sauk Trail building and the
warehouse do not have an exercise facility. That lack of an exercise facility was
a non-issue and had nothing to do with the allowance paid to the employes who moved
to those particular facilities. In fact, the Employer went to the expense of
providing an exercise facility in the World Trade Center. In the Employer's eyes,
given the disparate number of employes at the respective worksites the World Trade
Center exercise facility approximates that found at the headquarters complex.

The Employer is attending to the lack of medical facilities and a smoking area
at the World Trade Center. Similarly, the Employer continues to work on the
provision of free service for employes who experience car problems. The Employer
characterizes many of the complaints brought forward by the Union as petty. It
believes that the Union has ignored the fact that the Employer has moved its
employes into a first-class building, albeit one with new building problems. It has
made a good-faith effort, in fact at times a Herculean effort, to provide first-rate
surroundings to its employes.

DISCUSSION

Five articles of the contract are cited by the grievance and/or union brief
as having been violated. Four of those claims can be dismissed with relative ease.
Both the Preamble and Cooperation Provisions are proclamations of good faith. To
construe either as requiring compensation of a specified amount under these varying
circumstances is to inflate their substantive meanings. Such would not be a
reasonable construction of the words used by the parties. Article XV, Section 8
refers to salary structure, and as such, appears to refer to Exhibits A, B, C,
Represented Salary Structure. Differential monies were paid on the basis of
physical location and not on the basis of occupation or pay grade. I do not believe
a salary structure change occurred here.

In its brief, the Union points to Article XIX, "Transfer of Operations", in
support of its position that employes are entitled to compensation. Read literally,
that Article, particularly Section 1, indicates that employes carry rights with them
if their offices are moved to another city. I do not regard that Article as
dispositive of this issue. While it is true, that the employes were transferred to
Middleton, Wisconsin from Madison, Wisconsin I do not believe that transfer falls
within the meaning originally attributed to the section in question. At the time
of the negotiation of the contract the Employer did not have a satellite located in
Middleton, Wisconsin. I believe that Article XIX must be read in conjunction with
the Recognition Clause which sets forth the various cities around the country in
which the Employer operates. It appears to me that the parties made reference to
the then-existing worksites in the crafting of Article XIX. While it is true that
Middleton is a city separate and distinct from Madison it is further true that the
distance from the headquarters site to the Middleton satellite is a distance of five
miles. What has occurred is that suburban Middleton and suburban Madison have grown
into one another. I simply do not regard Article XIX, Section 1 as a "Maintenance
of Standards" clause applicable to a move within the same metropolitan area.

I believe Article 14, Section 2 lies at the core of this dispute. I do regard
that article as a Maintenance of Standards provision. On its face, it preserves
existing working conditions. I do not regard the disagreement over whether or not
the $100 per month was negotiated to be meaningful. The contract does not preserve
only those working conditions which have been "negotiated". The experience of the
parties is that, prior to the World Trade Center transfer, there had been two
transfers of unit employes away from the Mineral Point Road worksite. On both
occasions, all affected employes had been compensated $100 per month for the loss
of Mineral Point Road amenities. All parties testifying agree that the $100 was
intended to compensate for loss of underground parking and subsidized cafeteria.

To me, certain consequences follow from the prior transfers. Certain benefits
pointed to by the Union have been subordinated to certain other benefits.
Specifically, the loss of exercise facilities and medical facilities have been
economically subordinated to the parking and cafeteria benefits. Neither the Old
Sauk Road nor the warehouse had either exercise or medical facilities. No witness
attributed any compensation to the loss of either of these. All parties indicated
that the $100 per month was to compensate employes for loss of cafeteria and
underground parking benefits. Even more specifically, all witnesses allocated the
$100 evenly between the two benefits. It does not appear that smoking was
previously impacted. However, testimony indicated that the Company continues to
make efforts to secure smoking quarters for its World Trade Center employes.

What I am left with is two characterizations of an arrangement. From the
Union's perspective, the parties struck a deal which called for $100 a month for the
loss of cafeteria and indoor parking. That deal permitted the reduction of benefit
levels in the areas of exercise facilities and medical facilities. From the Company
point of view, it (the Company) unilaterally determined to compensate employes for
loss of cafeteria and parking and not for the other two. The Union acquiesced (i.e.
failed to invoke its right to bargain). However characterized, the arrangement is
the same. The $100 a month represents a jointly embraced liquidated damages payment
for the loss of cafeteria and underground parking. The contractual entitlement is
the availability of underground parking and a subsidized cafeteria. Those are the
benefits protected by the Standards Clause of the labor agreement. In my view, by
agreement or acquiescence, the parties have established $100 per month as
appropriate compensation for the loss of these benefits. My task is to derive the
intent of the parties as expressed by their words in the contract and their actions
in interpreting those words. I am hardly free to ignore the $100 per month.

The Employer explains the initial $100 per month subsidy as a unilateral
business-driven initiative. According to the Employer, the initial concern of
management in the Old Sauk Trail relocation was whether people involuntarily moved
to Old Sauk Trail would bid back to the headquarters complex because they felt they
were losing something by moving off-site. Further, one of the first groups to be
moved were employes involved in handling employe benefits claims, and management was
concerned that if these highly-trained employes bid back to the headquarters
complex, business might suffer. The Employer then developed an off-site subsidy or
relocation allowance in the amount of $100, which was primarily to address two
things the employes would not have in the Old Sauk Trail building: a cafeteria and
underground parking.

I accept the premise that the Company was motivated by its concern that
substantial employe bids back into the headquarters complex would adversely affect
its business in the formulation of the $100. That fact leaves unaddressed the
virtually automatic extension of the $100 subsidy that arose during the warehouse
move. There has been no claim that employes sent to the warehouse had similar
skills and critical placement as did the employes sent to the Old Sauk Trail
building. This automatic extension of the benefit to the warehouse move lends
support to the notion that the money represented compensation for lost amenities.
It is inconsistent with the view that the money served the sole narrow business
purpose of discouraging costly transfer of key personnel.

The Employer complains that the Union had a forum to address this dispute.
That forum, argues the Employer, is collective bargaining. In the Employer's view,
the Union should have come forward with proposals and negotiated those proposals
with respect to the impact of the relocation to the World Trade Center. The
Employer argues that having waived its opportunity to do so, the Union has waived
its entitlement to compensation of any sort attaching to this move. That assumes
that there is no contractually enforceable agreement with respect to the value of
the lost amenities. To the contrary, I find that the parties had essentially
liquidated the value of the lost cafeteria and lost parking in two prior incidents.
The Union had no obligation to come forward and bargain under these circumstances.
Whether by negotiation or by tacit understanding, the Union had an agreement. That
agreement was for the Employer to liquidate the value of the lost cafeteria and the
lost underground parking in an amount equal to $100. I find no waiver attaching to
the failure of the Union to come forward and bargain over these matters.

The Employer argues that the $100 allowance is not a benefit within the
meaning of the terms of the contract in that it did not exist as of the
renegotiation of the existing agreement and therefore cannot be a benefit preserved
by the Maintenance of Standards clause. I agree with the Employer's factual
assertion that the $100 allowance did not exist as of the time the parties
renegotiated their agreement. However, cafeteria benefits and underground parking
did exist as benefits as of the renegotiation of the parties' labor agreements. It
is those benefits that are preserved by the Maintenance of Standards clause. In the
absence of those benefits, I regard the parties as having agreed to liquidate the
loss of those benefits in an amount equal to $100 per employe per month.

In the move to the World Trade Center, the Company decided not to provide the
$100 differential. It appears that the Company viewed the World Trade Center as an
upscale facility with amenities, including a subsidized cafeteria, that offset those
lost. In my view, Article 14, Section 2 does not permit the Company to unilaterally
make the trade-offs that are implicit in its decision. Underground parking,
particularly in a Wisconsin winter, is a significant employment benefit. Parking
security is an equally significant benefit to a predominantly female work force
arriving or leaving after dark. Whether negotiated or not, it fits comfortably
within Article 14, Section 2's scope. While larger break rooms may or may not be
an equitable trade-off for the loss of such parking, that is a matter for
negotiation and not for unilateral Company determination.

AWARD

The Company has violated Article 14, Section 2.

RELIEF

Parking

All testimony indicates that $50 a month was provided to all employes at Old
Sauk Trail and the warehouse for loss of underground parking. The Company has
simply failed to provide indoor parking. Effective July, 1991, the Company owes all
World Trade Center employes $50 per month for the loss of underground parking.

Cafeteria

The Company has provided cafeteria facilities at the World Trade Center. The
prices are subsidized by 25%, i.e., the Company pays 25% of the cost of meals.
Those meals are on balance more expensive than those served at the Mineral Point
Road Headquarters. However, the record shows that the level of company subsidy at
Mineral Point Road has dropped from approximately 33% at one time, to a current
subsidy of 20%. According to Company witnesses, this is pursuant to a conscious
decision to lower that subsidy. The Company subsidy is actually a greater
percentage of the cost of serving the food at World Trade Center. Given the economy
of scale or whatever other factor(s) drive the World Trade Center cafeteria prices,
both the employe and employer pay more for food at the World Trade Center. I
believe the Company has achieved rough equity with respect to first shift employes
at the World Trade Center. That being the case, the underlying basis for the
cafeteria portion of the differential does not exist for first shift employes.

The story is different for second shift employes. The cafeteria is not open
during any portion of their work shift. At Mineral Point Road, the cafeteria is
open from 4:30 - 6:00 p.m. To these employes, the benefit has been eliminated. I
believe the Company owes these employes a $50 per month cafeteria differential,
retroactive to July, 1991. The Company is free to terminate this differential at
such time as it replicates the Mineral Point Road cafeteria hours for these
employes.

In summary, I find that all World Trade Center employes are entitled to a $50
per month parking differential and that second shift employes are entitled to an
additional $50 per month differential until such time as the Company replicates the
Mineral Point Road cafeteria hours at its World Trade Center cafeteria.
Differentials are retroactive to July, 1991, the date the grievance was filed.